Red Mosquito

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Again, you guys are talking about corporate strategies here. I don't know why anyone would side with those interests unless they don't care about art or personality or idiosyncrasy or humanity or

I get it. You don't like having new Star Wars trilogy. But wtf is transformers? Your arguments against Star Wars can easily be turned on transformers but you love the director.

Be real here mr.

Not really. Like it or not, Transformers is unapologetically Michael Bay's vision. That's the main reason so many people hate it. But it is his. It's all him. And I love that.

I get what you're saying, but I think the bigger problem most people have with Transformers, at least initially is that Micheal Bay's vision shits entirely on the Transformers and their history. Dinobots with different names for no reason, Characters that are entirely different from the source material. He banked on the name and nostalgia of an existing franchise and then dismantled the parts of it that people actually cared about.

and I wasn't actually going to mention Star Wars in this post, but now I think it is a decent analog for exactly WHY Disney/Lucasfilm doesn't want their vision deviated from too much. Micheal Bay has taken a beloved franchise and shit on it's history so much its become nothing but a joke to many many people. There is too much investment in these characters that those deviations could cripple the ability to continue to make movies that aren't the focus of widespread public ridicule.

Strat wrote:And its so so so awful. And toys

It's beautiful and I love it

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Again, you guys are talking about corporate strategies here. I don't know why anyone would side with those interests unless they don't care about art or personality or idiosyncrasy or humanity or

I get it. You don't like having new Star Wars trilogy. But wtf is transformers? Your arguments against Star Wars can easily be turned on transformers but you love the director.

Be real here mr.

Not really. Like it or not, Transformers is unapologetically Michael Bay's vision. That's the main reason so many people hate it. But it is his. It's all him. And I love that.

I get what you're saying, but I think the bigger problem most people have with Transformers, at least initially is that Micheal Bay's vision shits entirely on the Transformers and their history. Dinobots with different names for no reason, Characters that are entirely different from the source material. He banked on the name and nostalgia of an existing franchise and then dismantled the parts of it that people actually cared about.

and I wasn't actually going to mention Star Wars in this post, but now I think it is a decent analog for exactly WHY Disney/Lucasfilm doesn't want their vision deviated from too much. Micheal Bay has taken a beloved franchise and shit on it's history so much its become nothing but a joke to many many people. There is too much investment in these characters that those deviations could cripple the ability to continue to make movies that aren't the focus of widespread public ridicule.

Yeah I do not care about this at all

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Again, you guys are talking about corporate strategies here. I don't know why anyone would side with those interests unless they don't care about art or personality or idiosyncrasy or humanity or

I get it. You don't like having new Star Wars trilogy. But wtf is transformers? Your arguments against Star Wars can easily be turned on transformers but you love the director.

Be real here mr.

Not really. Like it or not, Transformers is unapologetically Michael Bay's vision. That's the main reason so many people hate it. But it is his. It's all him. And I love that.

I get what you're saying, but I think the bigger problem most people have with Transformers, at least initially is that Micheal Bay's vision shits entirely on the Transformers and their history. Dinobots with different names for no reason, Characters that are entirely different from the source material. He banked on the name and nostalgia of an existing franchise and then dismantled the parts of it that people actually cared about.

and I wasn't actually going to mention Star Wars in this post, but now I think it is a decent analog for exactly WHY Disney/Lucasfilm doesn't want their vision deviated from too much. Micheal Bay has taken a beloved franchise and shit on it's history so much its become nothing but a joke to many many people. There is too much investment in these characters that those deviations could cripple the ability to continue to make movies that aren't the focus of widespread public ridicule.

Yeah I do not care about this at all

Which is totally fine for you personally. But you are a minority as it relates to people that go see movies. You're a niche of a niche. Which is great. But you do understand entirely WHY they wont give the directors complete and total freedom, so you're essentially just trolling.

And because of the complex nature of their multi media universe across comics, shows, books, games, etc it's imperative that Lucasfilm keeps a handle on what the directors are doing. Some throwaway improv line that might work in the movie could end up creating some bizarre plot hole throughout 43 projects in progress.

Bay being allowed to have complete and total freedom in Transformers works because he essentially devalued the history and nostalgia so maliciously it changed Transformers from being a live action retelling of a beloved (overstated, i know) franchise to SHIT SHINY ROBOTS BEING MAD... which can be entertaining on its own, but doesn't really rely on being Transformers at this point. That's just a banner to help market the toys. Star Wars can't allow that.

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Again, you guys are talking about corporate strategies here. I don't know why anyone would side with those interests unless they don't care about art or personality or idiosyncrasy or humanity or

I get it. You don't like having new Star Wars trilogy. But wtf is transformers? Your arguments against Star Wars can easily be turned on transformers but you love the director.

Be real here mr.

Not really. Like it or not, Transformers is unapologetically Michael Bay's vision. That's the main reason so many people hate it. But it is his. It's all him. And I love that.

I get what you're saying, but I think the bigger problem most people have with Transformers, at least initially is that Micheal Bay's vision shits entirely on the Transformers and their history. Dinobots with different names for no reason, Characters that are entirely different from the source material. He banked on the name and nostalgia of an existing franchise and then dismantled the parts of it that people actually cared about.

and I wasn't actually going to mention Star Wars in this post, but now I think it is a decent analog for exactly WHY Disney/Lucasfilm doesn't want their vision deviated from too much. Micheal Bay has taken a beloved franchise and shit on it's history so much its become nothing but a joke to many many people. There is too much investment in these characters that those deviations could cripple the ability to continue to make movies that aren't the focus of widespread public ridicule.

Yeah I do not care about this at all

Which is totally fine for you personally. But you are a minority as it relates to people that go see movies. You're a niche of a niche. Which is great. But you do understand entirely WHY they wont give the directors complete and total freedom, so you're essentially just trolling.

And because of the complex nature of their multi media universe across comics, shows, books, games, etc it's imperative that Lucasfilm keeps a handle on what the directors are doing. Some throwaway improv line that might work in the movie could end up creating some bizarre plot hole throughout 43 projects in progress.

Bay being allowed to have complete and total freedom in Transformers works because he essentially devalued the history and nostalgia so maliciously it changed Transformers from being a live action retelling of a beloved (overstated, i know) franchise to SHIT SHINY ROBOTS BEING MAD... which can be entertaining on its own, but doesn't really rely on being Transformers at this point. That's just a banner to help market the toys. Star Wars can't allow that.

But...why are you defending this? Why are you defending a soulless monolith protecting its brand regardless of art? Why are you defending nostalgia over new vision? Why is any of that good or worth valuing?

I don't care if my tastes are niche. I don't care what the clueless public wants from their movies. All I care about is art. I care about movies being good. I care about individual vision. Under Bay, Transformers has that. Under Disney, it's a miracle if any of that squeaks past the executives.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Again, you guys are talking about corporate strategies here. I don't know why anyone would side with those interests unless they don't care about art or personality or idiosyncrasy or humanity or

I get it. You don't like having new Star Wars trilogy. But wtf is transformers? Your arguments against Star Wars can easily be turned on transformers but you love the director.

Be real here mr.

Not really. Like it or not, Transformers is unapologetically Michael Bay's vision. That's the main reason so many people hate it. But it is his. It's all him. And I love that.

I get what you're saying, but I think the bigger problem most people have with Transformers, at least initially is that Micheal Bay's vision shits entirely on the Transformers and their history. Dinobots with different names for no reason, Characters that are entirely different from the source material. He banked on the name and nostalgia of an existing franchise and then dismantled the parts of it that people actually cared about.

and I wasn't actually going to mention Star Wars in this post, but now I think it is a decent analog for exactly WHY Disney/Lucasfilm doesn't want their vision deviated from too much. Micheal Bay has taken a beloved franchise and shit on it's history so much its become nothing but a joke to many many people. There is too much investment in these characters that those deviations could cripple the ability to continue to make movies that aren't the focus of widespread public ridicule.

Yeah I do not care about this at all

Which is totally fine for you personally. But you are a minority as it relates to people that go see movies. You're a niche of a niche. Which is great. But you do understand entirely WHY they wont give the directors complete and total freedom, so you're essentially just trolling.

And because of the complex nature of their multi media universe across comics, shows, books, games, etc it's imperative that Lucasfilm keeps a handle on what the directors are doing. Some throwaway improv line that might work in the movie could end up creating some bizarre plot hole throughout 43 projects in progress.

Bay being allowed to have complete and total freedom in Transformers works because he essentially devalued the history and nostalgia so maliciously it changed Transformers from being a live action retelling of a beloved (overstated, i know) franchise to SHIT SHINY ROBOTS BEING MAD... which can be entertaining on its own, but doesn't really rely on being Transformers at this point. That's just a banner to help market the toys. Star Wars can't allow that.

But...why are you defending this? Why are you defending a soulless monolith protecting its brand regardless of art? Why are you defending nostalgia over new vision? Why is any of that good or worth valuing?

I don't care if my tastes are niche. I don't care what the clueless public wants from their movies. All I care about is art. I care about movies being good. I care about individual vision. Under Bay, Transformers has that. Under Disney, it's a miracle if any of that squeaks past the executives.

Because I don't view it as soulless? I enjoy the multi layered stories that reward watching an animated series or reading a related novel. I like that the character with one line in the back of a Cantina could have an entire backstory worth telling. Or that a cranky droid on a kids show can be my favorite character. And that has to monitored and it's integrity maintained. It's important, not soulless.

You love bay and that's fine. but let's not pretend his vision is "new." It's been a similar vision across 5 movies now in terms of how it looks. And convoluted stories that make absolutely no sense dont appeal to me. And I don't hate Bay to the level that many do (i really like the Island, the first Transformers was fun, the 3rd wasn't bad). But your vision of what constitutes Art often isn't as based in story or characters like it is to many people. That doesn't make it wrong.. just makes it different. Outside of general joking, I dont think anyone actually devalues what you find important or what you personally enjoy in films the way you are trying to about Star Wars.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Again, you guys are talking about corporate strategies here. I don't know why anyone would side with those interests unless they don't care about art or personality or idiosyncrasy or humanity or

I get it. You don't like having new Star Wars trilogy. But wtf is transformers? Your arguments against Star Wars can easily be turned on transformers but you love the director.

Be real here mr.

Not really. Like it or not, Transformers is unapologetically Michael Bay's vision. That's the main reason so many people hate it. But it is his. It's all him. And I love that.

I get what you're saying, but I think the bigger problem most people have with Transformers, at least initially is that Micheal Bay's vision shits entirely on the Transformers and their history. Dinobots with different names for no reason, Characters that are entirely different from the source material. He banked on the name and nostalgia of an existing franchise and then dismantled the parts of it that people actually cared about.

and I wasn't actually going to mention Star Wars in this post, but now I think it is a decent analog for exactly WHY Disney/Lucasfilm doesn't want their vision deviated from too much. Micheal Bay has taken a beloved franchise and shit on it's history so much its become nothing but a joke to many many people. There is too much investment in these characters that those deviations could cripple the ability to continue to make movies that aren't the focus of widespread public ridicule.

Yeah I do not care about this at all

Which is totally fine for you personally. But you are a minority as it relates to people that go see movies. You're a niche of a niche. Which is great. But you do understand entirely WHY they wont give the directors complete and total freedom, so you're essentially just trolling.

And because of the complex nature of their multi media universe across comics, shows, books, games, etc it's imperative that Lucasfilm keeps a handle on what the directors are doing. Some throwaway improv line that might work in the movie could end up creating some bizarre plot hole throughout 43 projects in progress.

Bay being allowed to have complete and total freedom in Transformers works because he essentially devalued the history and nostalgia so maliciously it changed Transformers from being a live action retelling of a beloved (overstated, i know) franchise to SHIT SHINY ROBOTS BEING MAD... which can be entertaining on its own, but doesn't really rely on being Transformers at this point. That's just a banner to help market the toys. Star Wars can't allow that.

But...why are you defending this? Why are you defending a soulless monolith protecting its brand regardless of art? Why are you defending nostalgia over new vision? Why is any of that good or worth valuing?

I don't care if my tastes are niche. I don't care what the clueless public wants from their movies. All I care about is art. I care about movies being good. I care about individual vision. Under Bay, Transformers has that. Under Disney, it's a miracle if any of that squeaks past the executives.

Let's also applaud paramount support of Michael Bay's tireless quest to make the transformers racist as hell because art?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

stip wrote:That's not what I'm siding with. I'm siding with a vision of star wars that I prefer, and because I, like many people, prefer it, it is what the studio is backing. If the last two movies were shit, or if this was something like Transformers that I thought was terrible, I would feel differently. The corporate strategy wants to make money off the movies, but they'll make that money by telling stories that people find emotionally resonant with characters and images that stay with people. It's why I own the new movies on blu ray and don't give a shit about owning the prequels.



I don't know why anyone would side with those interests unless they don't care about art or personality or idiosyncrasy or humanity or

In this particular case the studio sided with one particular vision about art, personality, idosyncrasy, humanity (Lawrence Kasden's vision) over another (L+Ms)

Screenwriters almost never bring vision. And I don't think Disney was siding with Kasdan anyway.

TFA isn't even a speck of shit on the bottom of Transformers' boot.

Isn't the kasden stuff one of the core components of what we allegedly know about this story?

I think your screenwriters point is also nonsense.

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Again, you guys are talking about corporate strategies here. I don't know why anyone would side with those interests unless they don't care about art or personality or idiosyncrasy or humanity or

I get it. You don't like having new Star Wars trilogy. But wtf is transformers? Your arguments against Star Wars can easily be turned on transformers but you love the director.

Be real here mr.

Not really. Like it or not, Transformers is unapologetically Michael Bay's vision. That's the main reason so many people hate it. But it is his. It's all him. And I love that.

I get what you're saying, but I think the bigger problem most people have with Transformers, at least initially is that Micheal Bay's vision shits entirely on the Transformers and their history. Dinobots with different names for no reason, Characters that are entirely different from the source material. He banked on the name and nostalgia of an existing franchise and then dismantled the parts of it that people actually cared about.

and I wasn't actually going to mention Star Wars in this post, but now I think it is a decent analog for exactly WHY Disney/Lucasfilm doesn't want their vision deviated from too much. Micheal Bay has taken a beloved franchise and shit on it's history so much its become nothing but a joke to many many people. There is too much investment in these characters that those deviations could cripple the ability to continue to make movies that aren't the focus of widespread public ridicule.

Yeah I do not care about this at all

Which is totally fine for you personally. But you are a minority as it relates to people that go see movies. You're a niche of a niche. Which is great. But you do understand entirely WHY they wont give the directors complete and total freedom, so you're essentially just trolling.

And because of the complex nature of their multi media universe across comics, shows, books, games, etc it's imperative that Lucasfilm keeps a handle on what the directors are doing. Some throwaway improv line that might work in the movie could end up creating some bizarre plot hole throughout 43 projects in progress.

Bay being allowed to have complete and total freedom in Transformers works because he essentially devalued the history and nostalgia so maliciously it changed Transformers from being a live action retelling of a beloved (overstated, i know) franchise to SHIT SHINY ROBOTS BEING MAD... which can be entertaining on its own, but doesn't really rely on being Transformers at this point. That's just a banner to help market the toys. Star Wars can't allow that.

But...why are you defending this? Why are you defending a soulless monolith protecting its brand regardless of art? Why are you defending nostalgia over new vision? Why is any of that good or worth valuing?

I don't care if my tastes are niche. I don't care what the clueless public wants from their movies. All I care about is art. I care about movies being good. I care about individual vision. Under Bay, Transformers has that. Under Disney, it's a miracle if any of that squeaks past the executives.

Because I don't view it as soulless? I enjoy the multi layered stories that reward watching an animated series or reading a related novel. I like that the character with one line in the back of a Cantina could have an entire backstory worth telling. Or that a cranky droid on a kids show can be my favorite character. And that has to monitored and it's integrity maintained. It's important, not soulless.

You love bay and that's fine. but let's not pretend his vision is "new." It's been a similar vision across 5 movies now in terms of how it looks. And convoluted stories that make absolutely no sense dont appeal to me. And I don't hate Bay to the level that many do (i really like the Island, the first Transformers was fun, the 3rd wasn't bad). But your vision of what constitutes Art often isn't as based in story or characters like it is to many people. That doesn't make it wrong.. just makes it different. Outside of general joking, I dont think anyone actually devalues what you find important or what you personally enjoy in films the way you are trying to about Star Wars.

Sure. We just fundamentally disagree on that stuff being important. Like you mentioned, I don't care about story. In a lot of ways, I think narrative impedes art more than it is important to it. Backstories and stuff like that just does not interest me.

I didn't mean to say Bay's vision was "new" so much as I was responding to your point about him throwing away the history of the franchise. He has a new (or maybe "different" is a better word) for the property than what has come before. Which I think is totally fine. I actually agree with you that the storytelling is convoluted and nonsensical, and I think Bay himself kinda thinks so too - he seems to actually make fun of the exposition at times, like Turturro hurrying one an exposition dump along saying,
"Come on. Plot. Information. Lets go. Faster," or something like that. And I fully acknowledge that none of that matters to me in face of the sheer beauty of Bay's style.

We've talked this point to death on RM, but this is all totally subjective. The only way I can honestly approach any conversation about art or the state of art is from my own subjective viewpoint, which is formed by what I personally value. And to me, plot, world-building, brand protection, and fan service are killing what I love in movies. So of course I'm going to bash it, regardless of how others may feel about it.

stip wrote:I think your screenwriters point is also nonsense.

Eh I can kind of see what he means. It's a lot more nuanced than that though

stip wrote:I think your screenwriters point is also nonsense.

They don't/shouldn't matter once a director takes over.

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Again, you guys are talking about corporate strategies here. I don't know why anyone would side with those interests unless they don't care about art or personality or idiosyncrasy or humanity or

I get it. You don't like having new Star Wars trilogy. But wtf is transformers? Your arguments against Star Wars can easily be turned on transformers but you love the director.

Be real here mr.

Not really. Like it or not, Transformers is unapologetically Michael Bay's vision. That's the main reason so many people hate it. But it is his. It's all him. And I love that.

I get what you're saying, but I think the bigger problem most people have with Transformers, at least initially is that Micheal Bay's vision shits entirely on the Transformers and their history. Dinobots with different names for no reason, Characters that are entirely different from the source material. He banked on the name and nostalgia of an existing franchise and then dismantled the parts of it that people actually cared about.

and I wasn't actually going to mention Star Wars in this post, but now I think it is a decent analog for exactly WHY Disney/Lucasfilm doesn't want their vision deviated from too much. Micheal Bay has taken a beloved franchise and shit on it's history so much its become nothing but a joke to many many people. There is too much investment in these characters that those deviations could cripple the ability to continue to make movies that aren't the focus of widespread public ridicule.

Yeah I do not care about this at all

Which is totally fine for you personally. But you are a minority as it relates to people that go see movies. You're a niche of a niche. Which is great. But you do understand entirely WHY they wont give the directors complete and total freedom, so you're essentially just trolling.

And because of the complex nature of their multi media universe across comics, shows, books, games, etc it's imperative that Lucasfilm keeps a handle on what the directors are doing. Some throwaway improv line that might work in the movie could end up creating some bizarre plot hole throughout 43 projects in progress.

Bay being allowed to have complete and total freedom in Transformers works because he essentially devalued the history and nostalgia so maliciously it changed Transformers from being a live action retelling of a beloved (overstated, i know) franchise to SHIT SHINY ROBOTS BEING MAD... which can be entertaining on its own, but doesn't really rely on being Transformers at this point. That's just a banner to help market the toys. Star Wars can't allow that.

But...why are you defending this? Why are you defending a soulless monolith protecting its brand regardless of art? Why are you defending nostalgia over new vision? Why is any of that good or worth valuing?

I don't care if my tastes are niche. I don't care what the clueless public wants from their movies. All I care about is art. I care about movies being good. I care about individual vision. Under Bay, Transformers has that. Under Disney, it's a miracle if any of that squeaks past the executives.

Because I don't view it as soulless? I enjoy the multi layered stories that reward watching an animated series or reading a related novel. I like that the character with one line in the back of a Cantina could have an entire backstory worth telling. Or that a cranky droid on a kids show can be my favorite character. And that has to monitored and it's integrity maintained. It's important, not soulless.

You love bay and that's fine. but let's not pretend his vision is "new." It's been a similar vision across 5 movies now in terms of how it looks. And convoluted stories that make absolutely no sense dont appeal to me. And I don't hate Bay to the level that many do (i really like the Island, the first Transformers was fun, the 3rd wasn't bad). But your vision of what constitutes Art often isn't as based in story or characters like it is to many people. That doesn't make it wrong.. just makes it different. Outside of general joking, I dont think anyone actually devalues what you find important or what you personally enjoy in films the way you are trying to about Star Wars.

I knew this was all just about fucking Chopper.

LoathedVermin72 wrote: And to me, plot, world-building, brand protection, and fan service are killing what I love in movies. So of course I'm going to bash it, regardless of how others may feel about it.

I think brand protection on its own is bad, but I think in the case of the Disney/Lucasfilm stuff it is one in the same with World Building... and I love the world building. I love the expansion of a universe in a coherent way. Im glad Chewbacca hasn't gotten crushed by a planet because some half ass writer decided to kill off a character. Im with you on fan service to an extent.

I love the hell out of Rogue One and I think it did all three levels of fan service
1. The kind I hate: The 2 guys from the Cantina in the street running into Jyn. Forced. Pointless and totally took me out of the movie.
2. The kind I don't mind: R2/C3PO- makes sense in universe, but totally unneeded.
3. The kind I like: Mentioning A character from Rebels, showing the Ghost, and chopper. Makes sense in universe, ties in lesser known properties without saying HEY LOOK AT ME!!

Simple Torture wrote:
I knew this was all just about fucking Chopper.

I saw this before my next response but IDGAF

@SkitchP wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote: And to me, plot, world-building, brand protection, and fan service are killing what I love in movies. So of course I'm going to bash it, regardless of how others may feel about it.

I think brand protection on its own is bad, but I think in the case of the Disney/Lucasfilm stuff it is one in the same with World Building... and I love the world building. I love the expansion of a universe in a coherent way. Im glad Chewbacca hasn't gotten crushed by a planet because some half ass writer decided to kill off a character. Im with you on fan service to an extent.

I love the hell out of Rogue One and I think it did all three levels of fan service
1. The kind I hate: The 2 guys from the Cantina in the street running into Jyn. Forced. Pointless and totally took me out of the movie.
2. The kind I don't mind: R2/C3PO- makes sense in universe, but totally unneeded.
3. The kind I like: Mentioning A character from Rebels, showing the Ghost, and chopper. Makes sense in universe, ties in lesser known properties without saying HEY LOOK AT ME!!

Yeah like none of that even registers with me. I just see a beautiful Gareth Edwards movie. IDGAF what universe it takes place in.

(The cantina guys moment was pretty bad though)

Is Billy Dee Williams gonna be in this?

wease wrote:Is Billy Dee Williams gonna be in this?

No. With Donald Glover they have hit their Star Wars world building of one black guy per film.